Areas of space-distorting dark matter have magnified a distant object that may …

We haven't yet been able to make a lens powerful enough to spot objects on the far edges of the visible Universe. Fortunately, the Universe itself has provided us with some gravitational lenses that might do the trick. Clusters of galaxies contain enough dark matter for their gravity to distort space significantly, curving it in a way that forms a lens and magnifying more distant objects. The Hubble Space Telescope has now been used to peer into a gravitational lens, and may have spotted the oldest, most distant galaxy yet observed.

Because of the expansion of the Universe, light from distant objects is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. At great distances, one of the spectral lines that is diagnostic of hydrogen shifts from its normal location in the UV all the way down to the infrared. And picking out hydrogen is rather important. Since the most distant objects are also the oldest, the earliest galaxies in our Universe existed before there had been many heavier elements produced by the first generation of stars—the vast majority of the material around was still hydrogen.

To find an early galaxy, a team called CLASH (Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble) has been searching for galaxy clusters that create nice gravitational lenses. They found one in MACS J1149.6+2223, which they describe as having "a relatively flat mass distribution profile and a large area of high magnification, making it one of the most powerful cosmic lenses known."

Imaging the lensed area in the infrared revealed something intriguing: an object the authors term MACS1149-JD1. The Hubble's IR camera couldn't detect it at wavelengths shorter than 1.2 mircons (the near-infrared). But it did appear in images taken with the hardware on Hubble that goes deepest into the infrared. To confirm there was something there, the astronomers got time on the Spitzer infrared space telescope and confirmed there really was an object at this location.

Red shift is measured in terms of a value called z, and the shifting of the hydrogen spectral lines suggest that MACS1149-JD1 comes in at a z of 9.6, one of the most distant objects detected. Only one other galaxy has ever been spotted at a similar distance, and only a single gamma ray burst came from anywhere near there. Because redshift is proportional to time, the authors were able to calculate an age: 490 million years after the Big Bang. That's under five percent of the age of the Universe itself, and only a few hundred million years after the Universe cooled off enough to allow the formation of the first stars.

To get a better view of the galaxy, the authors used objects that were lensed multiple times to create a map of the mass distribution of the cluster doing the lensing. Working back from there, they were able to estimate that MACS1149-JD1 was magnified by about fifteen times what it would have been otherwise. They estimate its total mass as a bit more than 108 times that of our Sun, and conclude that it's undergoing rapid star formation. MACS1149-JD1 is probably less than 200 million years from its original formation, and is about half the size of current galaxies.

Overall, the paper highlights just how hard it is to spot the earliest objects in our Universe. The Spitzer could tell there was something there, but didn't have great spatial resolution at these wavelengths. The Hubble had good resolution, but it could barely detect MACS1149-JD1 at the right wavelengths. Up until now, this has meant that we can only catch scattered glimpses into the earliest structures of our Universe.

All of that is scheduled to change, assuming that further cost overruns don't doom the James Webb Space Telescope. Intended from the start to track the evolution of the early Universe, the Webb will have a larger primary mirror than the Hubble, while being able to image deep into the infrared.

Talking about that galaxy in the present tense sort of does my head in... We are detecting something that existed as we see it over 13 billion years ago. What would it look like now? Whole generations of stars and solar systems will have been born and died, maybe even unknown numbers of civilisations... Who knows, maybe their equivalent of Hubble has just zoomed in on the Milky Way Galaxy (which is allegedly at least 13 billion years old as well) and is looking at all the young, bright stars from that time.

Talking about that galaxy in the present tense sort of does my head in... We are detecting something that existed as we see it over 13 billion years ago. What would it look like now? Whole generations of stars and solar systems will have been born and died, maybe even unknown numbers of civilisations... Who knows, maybe their equivalent of Hubble has just zoomed in on the Milky Way Galaxy (which is allegedly at least 13 billion years old as well) and is looking at all the young, bright stars from that time.

Mind-bending stuff.

Thinking about the light from something that no longer exists trips me out.....

Nitpick: "wavelengths shorter than 1.2 (the near-infrared)" is missing the unit. That should be 1.2 microns.

albeec13 wrote:

No pics of the post-processed galaxy after working backwards from the mass distribution?

That's available in the linked paper, Figure 7 on page 33. But this stuff's hard: it starts out as a super faint just-barely-resolved dot, and in the reconstructed image looks like an elongated version of the same... The cases you're thinking of, where the reconstructed image allows you to see significant structure in the original galaxy, do happen, but generally not at redshift almost ten!

I though the Universe was measured to be (roughly) 13.5 Billion years old, courtesy of WMAP - or, 13 thousand Million + 500 Million years old... and that the earliest stars formed around the time the Universe was 200 Million years old... unless I'm horribly off here, that would make an object 490 Million years old, about 13 thousand Million years or so away from when the those first stars came into being - not a few hundred Million.

EDIT: *sigh* I'm an idiot - after reading the paper, the age of the object in question is from the time of WHEN the Big-Bang happened... NOT "490 Million years old - from present time". Derp. Long day - not much sleep. Need coffee. Still fascinating to think about gravity manipulating ancient light to end its journey on the receiving end of a sensor array, sitting on a satellite orbiting around a little blue planet.

Nitpick: "wavelengths shorter than 1.2 (the near-infrared)" is missing the unit. That should be 1.2 microns.

albeec13 wrote:

No pics of the post-processed galaxy after working backwards from the mass distribution?

That's available in the linked paper, Figure 7 on page 33. But this stuff's hard: it starts out as a super faint just-barely-resolved dot, and in the reconstructed image looks like an elongated version of the same... The cases you're thinking of, where the reconstructed image allows you to see significant structure in the original galaxy, do happen, but generally not at redshift almost ten!

I had a suspicion the paper might have them, but I was too lazy to check

I read about this kind of dark matter gravitation simulation to reconstruct lensed galaxies in a book, but it's cool to see it actually being done in a paper.

I don't buy the Big Bang theory at all. There is no reason to believe that the edge of what we see is red-shifted because it's the earliest matter. Maybe the universe is purely random in distribution of matter.

I don't buy the Big Bang theory at all. There is no reason to believe that the edge of what we see is red-shifted because it's the earliest matter. Maybe the universe is purely random in distribution of matter.

But it isn't. All distant objects, no matter what, show significant red shifts. If the universe is indeed random, we should see roughly equal number of red-shifted objects and blue-shifted objects. But we don't.

I don't buy the Big Bang theory at all. There is no reason to believe that the edge of what we see is red-shifted because it's the earliest matter. Maybe the universe is purely random in distribution of matter.

But it isn't. All distant objects, no matter what, show significant red shifts. If the universe is indeed random, we should see roughly equal number of red-shifted objects and blue-shifted objects. But we don't.

I'm just saying that there is no hard evidence that the universe was created 14-15 billion years ago. For all we know the laws of physics are changing all the time.

Yeah, and everything was created Last Thursday. All this "apparent age" and history and whatnot is just the result of physics being changed.

Nope, we haven't been created yet, we're just echoes travelling into the past on chroniton waves from the future point of our creation. I look forward to watching the flashback of my funeral so I can choose what to wear.

I don't buy the Big Bang theory at all. There is no reason to believe that the edge of what we see is red-shifted because it's the earliest matter. Maybe the universe is purely random in distribution of matter.

But it isn't. All distant objects, no matter what, show significant red shifts. If the universe is indeed random, we should see roughly equal number of red-shifted objects and blue-shifted objects. But we don't.

I'm just saying that there is no hard evidence that the universe was created 14-15 billion years ago. For all we know the laws of physics are changing all the time.

No hard evidence? You will be pleased to know that there actually is plenty of hard ( high quality ) physical evidence. Multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to the Big Bang event approx 13.7billion years ago.

There is heaps of info in the subject out there. Google up the cosmic microwave background, how it was predicted, how it was found, and how it was used to verify other predictions of the Big Bang Theory.

Also, if the laws of physics were changing all the time, we would have seen the effects of that a long time ago. We actually do know that some of the fundamental laws of physics are the same across the observable universe, both in space and time.

I don't buy the Big Bang theory at all. There is no reason to believe that the edge of what we see is red-shifted because it's the earliest matter. Maybe the universe is purely random in distribution of matter.

But it isn't. All distant objects, no matter what, show significant red shifts. If the universe is indeed random, we should see roughly equal number of red-shifted objects and blue-shifted objects. But we don't.

I'm just saying that there is no hard evidence that the universe was created 14-15 billion years ago. For all we know the laws of physics are changing all the time.

So you are proposing that the laws of physcis changed at some point in the past which created the illusion of a universe that is older than it actually is? Is that correct? Would you like scientist to adopt and run with that theory because it makes more sense than what we have now?

You don't get to challenge all of cosmology by spouting random what-ifs. Go to school, get a degree, become a scientist and then....then you can challenge the status-quo.

2) Refracting Telescope --> Reflecting Telescope ---> Gravity Telescope.I shall be expecting some quality sci-fi literature in the near future that describes an advanced civilization that builds the universe's most powerful telescope by collecting and shaping a massive dark-matter-gravity-lense.

There is a "Light Event Horizon" where it is so far away from earth that the light has not had time to reach us yet since the big bang. You could think of it as an edge because we will never be able to see past it, as the light has not arrived yet.

There is a "Light Event Horizon" where it is so far away from earth that the light has not had time to reach us yet since the big bang. You could think of it as an edge because we will never be able to see past it, as the light has not arrived yet.

This always gets me. The "universe is too young and the stars are too far away for the light to have reached us yet" makes perfect sense but not in the context of the big bang. If the big bang started out as an infinitely small point in space then the situation of observers in the universe having light-event-horizons implies the expansion rate is/was greater than the speed of light? I suppose the other possibility is that the big bang began as a very large soup of whatever instead of an infinitely small soup of whatever?

There is a "Light Event Horizon" where it is so far away from earth that the light has not had time to reach us yet since the big bang. You could think of it as an edge because we will never be able to see past it, as the light has not arrived yet.

This always gets me. The "universe is too young and the stars are too far away for the light to have reached us yet" makes perfect sense but not in the context of the big bang. If the big bang started out as an infinitely small point in space then the situation of observers in the universe having light-event-horizons implies the expansion rate is/was greater than the speed of light? I suppose the other possibility is that the big bang began as a very large soup of whatever instead of an infinitely small soup of whatever?

I don't believe the Big Bang theory either. Look at the mass of our sun, the size of Jupiter and Saturn, and there are plenty of those around and what about these billions of galaxies spread out of an area as far away as 14 billion light years?

That's lots of rocks and dirts out of one single large explosion from a single object. If there was such an object it must had taken up all the space in this universe with very little room to move around or not moving at all during its years.

Where was this large object originating?

How old was this large object?

Was this large object just flowing up there?

What supported the weight of this large object from falling?

What caused the explosion?

There must be some other explanations that we have yet known. As for Big Bang theory? I don't think so.

That's lots of rocks and dirts out of one single large explosion from a single object. If there was such an object it must had taken up all the space in this universe with very little room to move around or not moving at all during its years.

That's kind of the point. The Universe as we know it didn't exist until the sudden expansion of space and time. Hence the early Universe is usually thought of as a singularity. That expansion of space and time that allowed things to spread out, move, and basically keep from reverting back into energy is the Big Bang. Even shortly after the start of the Big Bang, there wasn't enough empty space for matter to exist. Stuff like protons and neutrons couldn't precipitate out for long because the stuff they're made of (quarks) kept getting annihilated by their anti-particles before they could meaningfully be said to exist for long enough. The Big Bang isn't an explosion, it's the sudden growth of space. Basically it's the same thing that's still happening today, as we can see the Universe still growing.

For sure the universe is growing? We know we are moving, not necessary to say this movement indicating an expansion or growing or just moving around in circle? But who do we argue with? We just don't know. Or may be the stuff in the universe are simply fishing and circulating around like fish in a round/square shaped fish bowl and the fish thinking the space they are at is growing? :-) You know how big this 100 gallons fish tank is. It's big. But of course the fish have no scientists to back up their thinkings, we do.

Ok please bear with me.This object is from the time when universe was ~500milion yrs old. OK ... how big the universe was then? at least 13 bilion ly because the light is only now reaching us? If all originated from a single point weren't 12bilion years earler all matter/stars/galaxies be much closer together and therefore the light from those early galaxies should have already overtaken our current location and spread to infinity oposite from the poignt of origin (assuming the universe is flat and infinate). Or does that mean the universe is expanding many times the speed of light because once the first galaxies formed they already were billions of lightyears appart... but for some reason now the universe is no longer expanding at such a tromendous pace ... but at the same time its accelerating to expand.

It went like this: Singularity -> Super-fast expansion called Inflation -> Slower, sub-lightspeed expansion -> Expansion is accelerating again (but not yet faster than light). It looks something like this. In this picture, steeper the angle = faster the expansion.

Wow, some of the people commenting in this thread need to open up a book or two. No evidence of the big bang?? What kept all of this matter from falling? Falling into what? It isn't like all of the mass of the universe existed on some planet where it had a gravitational attraction pulling it somewhere. Also, much of the mass was just energy, quantum fluctuations were the source of the matter.

Just because your brain cannot cope with the idea of "forever" doesn't mean it isn't the answer. If you're wanting a finite answer for when the universe "started"... I'm afraid you'll likely be out of luck forever. Even religion cannot answer this question as "When did god start" tends to illicit a "well, forever" response as well. If even a made up answer can't answer the question, what implies science will find one?

Everything we've done to include measuring the universe by gravitational lensing and measuring red shift of galaxies shows expansion at an increasing rate, a rate which will dwarf the speed of light and eventually leave us stranded alone in our galaxy megred with andromaeda

Either read a book or 100, or go hide in your basement in fear of that which you don't understand... Like your computer, give it back to science and go play with rocks.

I don't believe the Big Bang theory either. Look at the mass of our sun, the size of Jupiter and Saturn, and there are plenty of those around and what about these billions of galaxies spread out of an area as far away as 14 billion light years?

That's lots of rocks and dirts out of one single large explosion from a single object. If there was such an object it must had taken up all the space in this universe with very little room to move around or not moving at all during its years.

Where was this large object originating?

How old was this large object?

Was this large object just flowing up there?

What supported the weight of this large object from falling?

What caused the explosion?

There must be some other explanations that we have yet known. As for Big Bang theory? I don't think so.

As others have said, there was no matter at all, no atoms, no particles, and there certainly were no rocks or complex molecules. All that was in the singularity was energy. We don't know what caused the "Big Bang", and we may never know.

Most people have no concept of the scale of what we think of the universe. But if you think of the different scales from particles to our universe is it not possible that there is something much bigger than our universe that is "holding" for lack of a better term our universe in it. For all we know it could have been something on this much larger scale that triggered our little singularity to expand at an almost unfathomable speed. I believe I have read that the best theory is that the singularity expanded from nothing to the size of the milky way in less than 1,000,000th of a second.

While many of you talking about theory I want more, the fact. If there will never be a proof of a Big Bang theory then don't doubt me for what I said wasn't any truthfulness.

I don't buy this no atoms no molecules, no particles theory. When there's light from the beginning there's atom and there's photon atoms, and molecules made of whole bunch of atoms. Atoms and molecules are the two every basis elements in this universe. Without them, there's no universe.

I'm a real person buddy, Tell me where the rocks and dirts came from and how it was formed and I'll believe your theory. Otherwise it will just be a debate. Powerful force behind this Big Bang theory and expansion theory might have been the result of the gravitational pull. If there was ever a such force. I believe it had.

But force is force, it's invisible, it's there, it's powerful, but it doesn't make rocks and dirts, period. rocks and dirts had to be came from some sources, whether they were from a single source or mountains of rocks. I suspected the green area before the dark ages were the sources. Where all the rocks came from.

Human made of a sperm and egg joined together, and here we are. You may tell me this story of God who make us out of a piece of bone fragment. But even bone is a piece of solid object. It's there. We can feel it and we can touch it. Just like we can touch the rocks and dirts. We can't touch the force.

Imagine how a grenade explode in mid-air some feet off the ground. The fragments scattering in all directions. These fragments from the grenade later formed billions of stars and galaxy. That's the kind of Big Bang I thought it always been. From a huge explosion. It has to be this sudden explosion. That's why it's called 'Bang', right? Expansion is not a 'Bang'. It's a stretch. A stretch lacks of this force as the explosion. It takes a sudden explosion to push billions of galaxy from a distance of 14 billion years away. And it's still going. It takes a huge explosion to drive this force.

The graphic from @wheels shows the expansion it appeared only from left to right in one single direction. Why? What happen to the left side of the Quantum Fluctuations? Was there a wall or some kind of energy blocking the expansion from going through that direction? Nothing went upward either nor downward only straight out to its right?

This effect similar to a shotgun fired off a shot. In this case, the pellets travel through a 2 feet barrel and off it went out of the barrel, in one directions. Just like what's shown in this graphic.

Where's the 2 feet barrel? It got to be there to caused that effect.

Was the universe out of a grenade explosion or was it out of a shotgun?

You should really go back and read some of the links that have been provided. You're clearly not understanding the difference between Big Bang and an explosion. The former is not the latter, they just do not work the same way.

As to how all of the mater that we know formed from all of that energy? Well i'm sure you you have heard of the reason for this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... quivalence, as the universe started to expand that allowed the energy to start to cool, as it cooled it coalesced and formed protons, then those formed atoms, then those clumped together to form molecules and so on.